Our View: Mandatory minimums the wrong answer

Tuesday

Nov 5, 2013 at 1:09 AMNov 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM

JOURNALSTANDARD.COM EDITORIAL

Mandatory-minimum sentences have been a disaster wherever they've been used. They restrict judges' ability to hand out proper penalties, they needlessly clog prisons and they wind up creating unnecessary costs for taxpayers.

Given the history of mandatory minimums, it makes no sense to create a three-year mandatory-minimum prison sentence for illegal gun possession, a proposal being pushed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

If Senate Bill 1342 makes it to the General Assembly floor for a vote this week, an iffy proposition given the cool reception it received from the House Judiciary Committee, it should be rejected.

We elect and appoint judges to do just that — judge. We prefer that decision-making reside with judges rather than be dictated by the Legislature. The judges see the facts and can make informed decisions based on evidence. Guidelines are fine, but judges need leeway to make sure that the person who made a stupid mistake is not incarcerated as long as one who truly is a criminal.

The National Rifle Association thinks SB1342 is too broadly written and could make felons of people who aren't. We agree. Those who use a gun to commit a crime should be punished severely, but a judge should be given discretion when faced with someone who is accused of carrying a gun without a valid permit.

Illinois already has mandatory-minimum prison terms for all gun crimes. On Jan. 1, 2011, a one-year mandatory minimum for several gun possession offenses was enacted. There have been no studies analyzing the penalty's effectiveness.

Illinois' prisons are crowded, and the state can't afford to keep everyone locked up. Prison capacity is supposed to be 34,000 but rises to 49,000 often, so there's no room for the extra inmates a gun mandatory minimum would surely create. An early release program barely puts a dent in prison crowding.

Overtime costs for corrections officers increased 34 percent last year, and last we checked the state is nearly broke and can't afford any more.

The legislation is being driven by Emanuel because of the increasing violence in Chicago. He's seeking the Legislature's help because when things are going bad, there's overwhelming pressure to "do something." The mandatory-minimum sentences are not the thing to do.

According to a study by the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University's School of Law, mandatory minimums are "not only costly but counterproductive" in combating gun violence. The study says "targeted interventions and evidence-based programming are more promising, proven solutions to gun violence."

We suggest that Emanuel hire more police officers if he wants to reduce gun violence in Chicago.

A recent editorial in The Los Angeles Times warned Illinois that California has been on the mandatory-minimum road, and it has not worked. The editorial concludes that California (and by extension, Illinois) should pursue "smarter criminal-justice policies — punishment and programs that are sufficiently effective and reliable to withstand the fear-based political pressure that is inevitable during periods of rising crime."